Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Protocols of Zion (imprints): Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 23:37, 17 October 2007

The Protocols of Zion (imprints)

This series of repetitive and duplicate articles violates Wikipedia:Content forking; WP:NOT#REPOSITORY; and cumulatively borders on WP:NOR. There has always been one very good featured article about the The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, and the articles here could easily be summarized and even WP:LISTified into it, but for some bizarre reason the creator of these "articles" User: Ludvikus seems to think that Wikipedia needs an article about every version of this abominable book that was ever thought of or written in any language. Most of the articles here are just bloated paragraphs with publication information. These "articles" should be combined and merged into the main article The Protocols of the Elders of Zion (minus the bulk of the "publication information" drivel) or transferred to Wikisource (the multiple images of the texts should be transferred to Wikipedia:Wikimedia Commons). Then all the article names here should be redirected to the main The Protocols of the Elders of Zion article. The following related pages are included in this nomination for deletion for the above reasons:

Thank you, IZAK 08:44, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Merge to The Protocols of the Elders of Zion and/or Move content/s to Wikisource and multiple images to Wikimedia Commons. Sincerely, IZAK 08:44, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. IZAK 08:54, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 09:42, 17 October 2007 (UTC)~~[reply]

Strong Keep As the author of many of these alleged "bizarre" articles, why do you think it is not proper for me to add my point of view here - for the convenience of the reader? I do not believe you are respecting the spirit and purpose of Wikipedia rules by deleting, reverting, and otherwise censoring my position regarding these articles. It is unfair to Wikipedia editors not to have before them the alternative opinion - an opinion which immediately tells them why there is nothing bizarre about the inclusion of the items listed by you above as bizarre. I want Wikipedia editors to have immediately the other point of view - that's all I want to do - right here, in this space. Yours truly, --Ludvikus 16:27, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Ludvikus: Is there anything that you have not managed to say yet? Have you never participated in a procedure like this? Once the nominator has created the page to nominate an article for deletion/merging or whatver, no-one can come along and change it, as you tried to do a few times already and that is a violation of Wikipedia:Vandalism. Anyone can present their points as part of voting for or against the deletion/merge or whatever is being suggested. One can even come up with a new solutionas some other users are doing here, IN THE MIDST OF THEIR VOTE BUT NOT IN THE BODY OF THE NOMINATION. But how can you have the audacity to claim that you, or anyone, is "deleting, reverting, and otherwise censoring my position regarding these articles" when so far no one has done anything to "your" articles. They have merely been nominated for delition/merging or whatever, and you are free to add your reasons here why they should be kept or not. But remember the rule of Wikipedia:Ownership of articles, that everyone is subject to. You will have to make a better case than this griping. Just look at the reasoning of others below and feel free to add comments. But honestly, how mush more do you wish to state without falling into overkill and violating Wikipedia:No climbing the Reichstag dressed as Spider-Man which you may have already done? IZAK 16:37, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You are not being truthful about my conduct. While you - a very experience WP Deletion Master - have your discriptive paragraph above, you have repeatedly, and recklessly, removed my position, expressed in a similar paragraph. And it appears that you do not even have the decency and respect for me to keep my word Keep in the above. You imply that I've already managed to say a lot. But the fact is that you've Vandalized my comments. It seems to me that you only wish Wikipedians to be informed that what I've done is bizarre. But you keep deleting my position that your views is one of ignorance. Now I will not restore what I have written. I expect you to do that. After that, I hope you have the capacity to apologize to me - but not before you come down from the top of the Reichstag. Yours truly, --Ludvikus 22:06, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Neither are your Red herrings any good here, except to distract editors from your position of ignorance. Why you accuse me of claim that any of these article are "mine" is an utterly dishonest attack on my integrity. It seems you will not stop at anything to make me appear bizarre. I'm not talking here about changing ANYTHING which you wrote. I'm asking you to let me write a descriptive paragraph of my own explaining to Wikipedians why what you claim is Bizarre is a view which clearly comes out of ignorance. Why do you refuse to let me do that? I want Wikipedians to have another view besides your own. What is wrong with that? --Ludvikus 22:33, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~Keep but Delete~~ the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. There is no such book called The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. To write as if there is - is to fall into an antisemitic trap created by the Warrant for Genocide. Yours truly, --Ludvikus 13:43, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no such thing as a single book here. So to claim that there is to manifest ignorance - something these articles attempt to show. This Warrant for Genocide has been, and continues to be used, by antisemites to attack Jews & Israelis. After WWI it was believed that by many descent Jews that "if we just keep quiet about this, it will go away." It did not go away and 6,000,000 Jews paid the price for that. I believe that we should and must flood the world with the Truth behind that Lie to the point where no one will want to have anything to do with it. That is the only way to fight this nonesense and garbage. Let me repeat: there is no such thing as the Protocols of Zion. There only are all the many different imprints of the same SHIT which too many people believe. That is why all these articles must be kept. If you want something deleted you should delete the following: Jewish Bolshevism and Żydokomuna (which also is supported by the Warrant for Genocide), as well as it's current version in Polish which is being put up by true believers in The Protocols. I'm sorry you find this distasteful. But you should think of my job on Wikipedia as a Doctor trying to cut out a cancer. And since you cannot stand to handle it, you should let me do your dirty work for you. Yours truly, --Ludvikus 13:29, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The accusation that there is here "Wikipedia:Content forking; WP:NOT#REPOSITORY; and cumulatively borders on WP:NOR" is simply arbitrary, capricious, unreasonable, reckless, and unfair. --Ludvikus 14:48, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I notice that everyone (but me) is also for Merge. That's good. I'm only interested in identifying the exact imprints of this antisemitic SHIT. But the current {{Main}} article is yet inadequate to support these subordinate articles of the actual antisemitic imprints, articles, pamplets, books, etc. Yours truly, --Ludvikus 14:08, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- All these subordinate articles send the reader to the Main Article (which unfortunately is still inadequate). I wish (through these subordinate titles) to educate the readers that there is no such thing as a single book. There even is no single title. And there is no single author. Its really a collection of antisemitic events spread over time. And it's all about The Non-Existent Manuscript, as Cesare G. De Michelis has so ably put it. --Ludvikus 14:29, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Please engage in a further discussion on this page's Talk page. --Ludvikus 15:47, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to The Protocols of the Elders of Zion and redirect. Content forking makes it harder to make a good encyclopaedia. -- Olve 11:51, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
merge into one article Editions of the Protocols of the wise men of Zion. The articles are not content forks, since the article limit themselves to the edition they are talking about. It is not OR, as they are well sourced. The problem is that is hard to find which article is the "real" article about all of the works. Merging them all in to one article should solve this problem. Jon513 12:50, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge. Some of these articles are a mishmash of cross-references to each other and quote farms; they are also OR, notwithstanding quoting a collection of sources. (After all, OR also uses sources.) --Redaktor 13:02, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: how so? I've seen a lot of people stretch the meaning of "original research" to cover merely assembling material; can you provide an example of the original research you see? -- 192.250.34.161 17:49, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Merge to The Protocols of the Elders of Zion --YoavD 13:50, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to The Protocols of the Elders of Zion and redirect this one. --JewBask 14:48, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all the imprint articles here to one "editions of" or "imprints of" annotated-list style article, such as JOn513's suggestion of Editions of the Protocols of the wise men of Zion. This book has been so deeply condemned for so long, from almost every quarter, that any publication of it is a significant event. It seems for now that the list, with descriptions, could add rather a lot of text to the main article. If, once the list has been completed, it looks small enough to add to the main article, then it can be merged, but amongst all the duplication and the bulky template, there appears to be some valuable info in the imprint articles, which should be preserved. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:57, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
merge/split: The Protocols of the Elders of Zion is quite long now and contains its own list of publications of ther Protocols. So as suggested above, create a new article about imprints, editions, translations, etc., old and modern: Versions of the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion". (The quotes in the title are essential, indicating that this is a title, not "real" protocols, which do not exist. `'Míkka 17:41, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: At first I thought that my judgement was going to be either "merge all nominated articles to the main Protocols article" or "merge all nominated articles to a single Editions of the "Protocols of the wise men of Zion" article". However, a little research makes me think that this might be overhasty -- take a look at The International Jew, which contains information about Henry Ford's publication of the Protocols and his subsequent attempts to claim that it had been published in his newspaper without his knowledge. When I thought that merging would probably be the correct decision, it was with the expectation that there would be at most a sentence or two worth saying about any particular edition/printing -- "this edition omits everything after Section XII", for instance, or "this edition changes all references to 'X' to 'Y'", or the like. I think there's reason to doubt that expectation now. -- 192.250.34.161 17:49, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The International Jew, its authorship by Henry Ford made it extremely notable, and it has been extensively discussed in reliable sources. No vote for everything else, but it looks deletion/merge -worthy. <eleland/talkedits> 19:41, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: One thing that definitely needs to be done is to clean up the redundant categories on all these individual-edition articles. It looks like Ludvikus mistakenly thought that if an article such as Velikoe v malom i antikhrist is in Category:Protocols of the Elders of Zion, and Category:Protocols of the Elders of Zion is in another category such as Category:Antisemitic publications, that means Velikoe v malom i antikhrist should naturally be in Category:Antisemitic publications. This is unfortunately the exact opposite of the truth: Putting Velikoe v malom i antikhrist in a sub-category of Category:Antisemitic publications (which Category:Protocols of the Elders of Zion is) correctly categorizes the book as an antisemitic publication, without cluttering the parent category with it and every other version of the Protocols. The only exception is The Protocols of the Elders of Zion which, as the main article of Category:Protocols of the Elders of Zion, should belong in all the same parent categories. -- 192.250.34.161 20:22, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The International Jew, this is a notable work, Henry Ford is infamous for his antisemitism, of which this is probably the zenith. Everything else can be merged into a single group, as mentioned above.

@@ Line 45: / Line 45: @@
 *'''Keep [[The International Jew]]''', its authorship by [[Henry Ford]] made it ''extremely'' notable, and it has been ''extensively'' discussed in reliable sources. '''No vote''' for everything else, but it looks deletion/merge -worthy. <tt>&lt;[[User:Eleland|<b><font color="#00A0F0">el</font><font color="#005080">eland</font></b>]]/[[User talk:Eleland|<b><font color="#00A0F0">talk</font></b>]][[Special:Contributions/Eleland|<b><font color="#005080">edits</font>]]</b>&gt;</tt> 19:41, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
 *'''Comment''': One thing that ''definitely'' needs to be done is to clean up the redundant categories on all these individual-edition articles.  It looks like Ludvikus mistakenly thought that if an article such as [[Velikoe v malom i antikhrist]] is in [[:Category:Protocols of the Elders of Zion]], and [[:Category:Protocols of the Elders of Zion]] is in another category such as [[:Category:Antisemitic publications]], that means [[Velikoe v malom i antikhrist]] should naturally be in [[:Category:Antisemitic publications]].  This is unfortunately the exact ''opposite'' of the truth:  Putting [[Velikoe v malom i antikhrist]] in a ''sub-category'' of [[:Category:Antisemitic publications]] (which [[:Category:Protocols of the Elders of Zion]] is) correctly categorizes the book as an antisemitic publication, without cluttering the parent category with it and every other version of the ''Protocols''.  The only exception is [[The Protocols of the Elders of Zion]] which, as the main article of [[:Category:Protocols of the Elders of Zion]], should belong in all the same parent categories. -- [[User:192.250.34.161|192.250.34.161]] 20:22, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
+*'''Keep''' [[The International Jew]], this is a notable work, Henry Ford is infamous for his antisemitism, of which this is probably the zenith. Everything else can be merged into a single group, as mentioned above.